The reason for the whole damn thing

Matthew Arnold, the esteemed Victorian essayist and poet, writes in his Essays in Criticism: "It is undeniable that the exercise of a creative power, that a free creative activity, is the highest function of man...but it is undeniable, also, that me may have the sense of exercising this free creative activity in other ways than in producing great works of literature or art; if it were not so, all but a very few men would be shut out from the true happiness of all men." This is how the Mr. Arnold humbly justifies the role of a critic. I agree with it 100%. Critics, let's say of movies for the purposes of this blog, know that they do not possess the creative genius to make a film, but they still feel compelled to lend what creativity they do have to the artistic process by sharing with the world their very informed comments about it. A good critic's review should be a healthy admixture of enthusiasm and erudition, even if it is negative in nature. He/she should not tolerate or accept anything less in the prose he/she is offering to the public.

This is what I intend to achieve in my reviews. They will nitpick, they will dissect, but most of all they will INFORM. I also agree with the estimable Mr. Arnold that the ultimate goal of criticism should be "creating a current of true and fresh ideas"- the "true" being well-established,universal truths(criteria) and the "new" being of our own invention, the offspring of our own creative power. Shouldn't keeping this continuum, this current, continually flowing be the highest and desired end for blogging as well? We have the power to influence and disseminate our ideas anytime, anywhere and to a multitiude of people. If this is the case, then let's say something that's worth saying and that will excite and precipitate argument or what I like to call "productive palaver".

I will give you a visual that elaborates on what I'm trying to say. The website you will be taken to is entitled "At the Movies". It was formerly hosted by the two greats of film criticism, Roger Ebert and the late Gene Siskel. There are two new hosts now that can't hold a candle to their predecessors. That's why I suggest searching the archive for movies made up to 1999 (for both) or after for Ebert alone. When you see these two banter back and forth, you will see what I mean about the art of criticism. Both inject their rhetoric with enthusiasm, invective and erudition. And, above all, it is damn enjoyable to watch. This is what I will try to achieve in the written word on my blog.